An interview with the philosopher Rocco Buttiglione, an expert on the teaching of St. John Paul II: “The perspective of Francis is perfectly traditional. The novelty is in applying the possible mitigations provided for all other sins, as they are quoted in the Catechism of St. Pius X, to the sin committed by the divorced and remarried as well”
“Amoris laetitia involves pastoral risks. Some may say it is a pastoral decision that is mistaken, but please let us do away with the apocalyptic tones, and stop saying that the doctrine on indissolubility is being put into question when we are dealing with a pastoral choice that relates to the discipline of the sacraments and which is grafted on a path whose foundations were laid by Pope John Paul II.” Professor Rocco Buttiglione, a philosopher, scholar and profound connoisseur of the magisterium of Pope Wojtyla, was struck by some of the criticisms of the post-synodal exhortation by Francis. Vatican Insider interviewed him.
What do you think of the exhortation Amoris laetitia as a whole?
“It seems to me to be a great effort to speak the word of faith within the context of today’s world. Which was also the biggest concern of John Paul II: the real man, the existing man, the man of reality, not the one described in the books or the one we would wish him to be.”
What relationship do you see between this document by Francis and the magisterium of Pope Wojtyla?
“Once, the Church excommunicated the divorced who had remarried. It did so for the sake of a valid concern: to avoid scandal and to not put into question the indissolubility of marriage. But then we were living in a concise Christianity. It was presumed that everyone knew what marriage was, a sacrament in which the spouses become mutual guarantors of the love of God and therefore if one leaves, in some way it is as if God has left too. John Paul II said that the divorced and remarried could not be excommunicated, remembering that in every sin there are objective and subjective factors. There are people who can do the wrong thing, which remains an evil, but without being totally responsible. So Pope Wojtyla opened up, inviting the divorced and remarried to enter the Church, receiving them, baptizing their children, reintegrating them into the Christian community. But without readmitting them to communion - as in point 84 of Familiaris Consortio - unless they came back with the legitimate spouse, or separated from the new spouse, or lived in the second marriage as brother and sister, that is abstaining from sexual relations.”
And now what does Amoris laetitia propose?
“Francis is taking a further step forward in this direction. He does not say that the divorced and remarried can receive or expect communion, hurrah! No! Divorce is awful and there can be no sexual acts outside of marriage. This moral teaching has not changed. The Pope says that now the divorced and remarried can go to confession, starting a path of discernment with the priest. As is done in every confession, for every sin, the priest must evaluate whether all the conditions exist for a sin to be considered mortal. To those of my colleagues who uttered strong words against Amoris laetitia I should mention that St. Pius X - not exactly a modernist Pope - in his Catechism recalled that mortal sin requires a grave matter, but also full awareness and deliberate consent, that is, full freedom to assume total responsibility for what I did.”
Why is this so important for the case we are talking about?
“Because today, in many cases, there is not full awareness. There are huge masses of the baptized who are not evangelized. One might say, but in these cases, there is the process of matrimonial nullity. Yes, this is true, although we must remember that in many parts of the world it is not as easy to access the ecclesiastical courts and it is not always so easy to find out the truth. We live in a world of wounded families, of wounded people, people who may find themselves in situations which they are unable to escape. You have to evaluate everything and help them get out of the situation of sin, to begin a journey, but without doing violence to spouses who accompanied them in a second marriage and who might have been close to them in a dramatic moment of their lives: think of the case of a mother with small children, abandoned by her husband, who has joined a man who took care of those children. We are talking about issues that require discernment, sensitivity, great humanity, compassion, guidance....”
With what as the final outcome, Professor?
“The question is: at what point of this process will the priest give communion? When he considers that the conditions are there, with nothing automatic and no shortcuts, but also without slamming the door in someone’s face before the personal stories have been seriously evaluated. This is the idea of the Church as a field hospital, which is so dear to Pope Francis. If we were at Bethesda Naval Hospital where the President of the United States is treated, the patient would come out perfectly healed, after all the necessary interventions have been made. In the field hospital, they begin to staunch the wounds.”
What relationship does this perspective have with the tradition of the Church?
“This perspective is perfectly traditional. Amoris laetitia says: let us also evaluate the subjective conditions for the sin of those who have been divorced and now live in a new union. It is an eminently pastoral question. I remember Don Luigi Giussani when he said: “You must judge the acts, and never judge the person, because that belongs only to God.” Only to God, and also a little to the confessor. I have read dramatic and unacceptable commentaries on the document, and in particular on a footnote.”
With the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia something has changed, then?
“Of course something has changed! But neither the morality nor the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage have changed. The pastoral discipline of the Church is changing. Until yesterday, for the sin committed by the divorced and remarried, there was a presumption of total guilt. Now even for this sin the subjective aspect will be evaluated, as is the case for murder, for not paying taxes, for exploiting workers, for all the other sins we commit. The priest listens and also assesses the mitigating circumstances. Do these circumstances change the nature of the situation? No, a divorce and a new union remain objectively evil. Do these circumstances change the responsibility of the person involved? Maybe yes. You have to discern.”
Does the emphasis on the subjective aspect risk turning into of form of subjectivism?
“It is not subjectivism. It is the fair consideration of human subjectivity. This is taught by St. Thomas Aquinas: you did something wrong but you cannot always assume all of the responsibility. Fundamentally this moral doctrine began on Calvary, when the crucified Jesus says: ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.’”
Some say that by readmitting the Eucharist, only in certain cases and after a path of discernment, the people in this situation would be changing the doctrine of the Church. What do you think?
“It is not a matter of doctrine. The doctrine remains as it is concerning the assessment of what is evil and what is not. Instead, we are talking about subjective accountability and any possible mitigating circumstances. In announcing the Gospel we have to ask ourselves what should be said first and what should be said later. Jesus did not say to John and Andrew: ‘First keep the commandments,’ but ‘Come and see!’. When St. Paul went to the Areopagus of Athens, his heart boiled in anger over all those altars to various deities. But when he took the floor, he said to the Athenians: ‘I admire your religion ...’ and then focused on the altar to the unknown God, proclaiming Jesus Christ. He began there. The time would come later to say that the other altars should be removed. Pope Francis declares that Jesus loves every man and woman in any situation in which they may find themselves, and wants every man and every woman to be saved by meeting the embrace of his mercy. Then there will be the commandments, but we cannot allow a mistake made in life to exclude anyone from this embrace.”
And yet Saint John Paul II fought against situational ethics, which is based on the subjective aspect ...
“What I see in some opponents of the Pope is the desire to remain only on the side of objectivity. It is true, as you recall, that Pope Wojtyla fought against situational ethics, according to which there is no objectivity, but only the subjective intention. Obviously this is not the case: there is the objective nature of an act. But John Paul II never thought, even remotely, of negating subjectivity. There are situations of sin from which it is difficult to extricate oneself. We live in a society of pansexualism in which there is less consciousness of certain ethical evidence. Because certain truths are assimilated by all, it takes patience and it takes the effort of going on a journey. Are there risks? Sure! Some might be inclined to think that a divorce and a new union are no longer an evil; someone who has remained faithful, even when separated from his marriage, might think there has been some mistake; someone else might fear the risk that consciences will weaken. There are pastoral risks, without a doubt. For this reason we must guide and explain. But it is a pastoral decision. Some may say it is wrong but please let us do away with the apocalyptic tones, and stop saying that the doctrine on indissolubility is being put in to question when we are faced with a choice that relates to the discipline of the sacraments and which is grafted on a path whose foundations were laid by Pope John Paul II.”
